http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=1028&mname=ArticleGroup Tarnished Badge Week 2 en-us 60 (See case studies by clicking on "home" in the toolbar) By Ryan Cardarella and Amanda Mauch At least 11 Milwaukee police officers were issued "deferred prosecution agreements" by the Milwaukee County District Attorney's office in recent years, allowing them to avoid convictions for a range of alleged crimes, a six-month Frontpage Milwaukee investigation has found. But the actual number may be higher because the DA's office says it does not track the cases, leaving comprehensive public scrutiny impossible. Some of the cases don't even appear on the automated circuit court record website open to the public (CCAP). Under deferred prosecution agreements, offenders who successfully complete the agreement are not charged or, if charged, have the charges against them dismissed. They must complete requirements that often include treatment and counseling. Unsuccessful participants are prosecuted. The agreements are relatively rare, at least in the office's domestic violence unit. A number of the cases in which officers' prosecution was deferred involve domestic violence, Frontpage Milwaukee found. And at least one prosecutor admits that officers' occupation plays a role in the office's decisions about whether to defer prosecution. That's because federal law precludes people convicted of domestic violence-related crimes from carrying firearms. (Photos: Marc Tremblay and Lindsay Killian) A team of student journalists with Frontpage Milwaukee pieced together some of the deferred prosecution cases by using a 2005 police roster and cross-checking it with court documents. Other cases were discovered through a partial list provided by the DA's office after an open records request. In a letter responding to an open records request, the DA's office provided the names of six officers it has entered into deferred prosecution agreements with in the last four years. The other five cases unearthed by students weren't in the letter. "There may well have been other DPAs with Milwaukee police officers in the past four years," the office admitted in the letter. The findings come on the heels of a Frontpage Milwaukee investigation last week (read it here) reporting that the city, Fire and Police Commission, and Milwaukee Police Department are refusing to tell the public how many and which officers have criminal convictions or drunk driving histories, saying it would be "unduly excessive" to compile the information. City hiring policy allows people to be hired as Milwaukee officers with multiple misdemeanor convictions or OWIs. But the investigation unearthed another pattern: Cases in which prosecutors allowed officers to avoid convictions altogether. In some of the cases, the officers who were given deferred prosecution agreements did not take advantage of the second chance and reoffended. In some cases, they had no further troubles. Some of the 11 officers have since left the force, sometimes well after their agreements. Others have not. Officers committed new crimes after agreements Sometimes officers granted the agreements have not lived up to them. Alexis West (pictured) was a Milwaukee police officer when he was granted a deferred prosecution agreement for a domestic-violence related crime, despite having a restraining order history. But he was caught drunk driving and failed a drug test, so the case was reopened and resulted in his conviction. A judge even overturned a ban on carrying a firearm, saying he needed it for his job as a police officer. Even then, West remained on the force until he committed a series of new crimes several months later. See full story on West here. Or consider the case of former Milwaukee Police Officer Alfred Luna. Luna received a deferred prosecution agreement for an unlawful phone use charge levied against him in January of 2006. Phone records show multiple calls made from Luna to a man named Archie Sharp during a three-hour period on the night of Jan. 17. According to Sharp, who was interviewed by a student journalist with Frontpage Milwaukee, Luna was allegedly intoxicated and unable to act rationally. “He just wouldn’t listen to reason,” alleged Sharp. “He told me he has connections on the police force and that he was going to make trouble for me.” Threats of physical harm would allegedly follow, with Luna stating his intention to trace the number and confront Sharp. Sharp maintains that he has no relationship with Luna and may have come in contact with him through the selling of some items via a newspaper ad. “I had put some ads up selling a weight bench and some speakers. Someone from his house called me and I tried back. Then about a week later I started getting these calls,” alleged Sharp. According to the criminal complaint, Sharp called police and told them he had received 25 calls from the same number. In one call, the caller said he knew where Sharp lived. In another call, he said he would burn down Sharp's house. In another call, he said he was a police officer. In a message left by the caller, he allegedly said, "You don't know who you are dealing with." Later that day, police went back to Sharp's residence because he had received another call and recorded it. The complaint said the message said: "Mr. Sharp, this is Mr. Luna. Just to let you know, dog, I'm gonna trace you down and find out who you are. All right? Remember that - don't mess with me. You don't know who you're messing with. So just that you know - once I find out who you are, dog, you're done. OK? You do not know who you are messing with. I've got connections..." Sharp also told the officers he had know idea who Luna was. Police subpoenaed Luna's phone records and found 77 calls from his number to Sharp. When interviewed, Luna claimed that a couple calls had come to his house first from Sharp's number, so he called back. He thought the calls were a prank, and he was drinking, and upset. He said he didn't feel threatened by the calls he'd received, in which the caller asked for someone named "Angel." He said he only remembered making 3-4 calls, and couldn't explain all of the other calls, the complaint said. But the DA's office didn't think Luna should receive a conviction. Instead, Luna received a deferred prosecution agreement for the charge, in part because of his clean history and the nature of the violation. “Luna’s case appeared to be isolated and there was no subsequent incident,” said Karen Loebel, who prosecuted the case. Soon there was. Luna remained on the force. In July, Luna was charged with a second offense, this time a disorderly conduct stemming from a domestic dispute in which he allegedly ripped the home phone out of the wall while intoxicated. This second offense caused his deferred prosecution agreement to be terminated, and Luna was later convicted of both charges. Officer Luna rendered his resignation on Sept. 23, just three days before a motion terminating his deferred prosecution agreement was made. Luna is currently on vacation until March and unavailable for comment, according to a family member. Officer given agreement got caught drunk driving Other officers remain on the force. Officer James Morsovillo received a deferred prosecution agreement in 2000 stemming from a domestic violence-related disorderly conduct charge involving his spouse. According to the complaint, his wife alleged he had slapped her and used profanities. While Morsovillo was suspended for that criminal violation, he met the terms of his DPA and stayed out of trouble until the case was dismissed, maintaining his status as an officer. In subsequent years, however, Morsovillo has run into problems again, while receiving short suspensions or reprimands. Morsovillo was cited for operating while intoxicated and driving the wrong way down Wells St. in March of 2004. Morsovillo was suspended for two days for those offenses. He also has two demerits to his file for failure to inventory evidence and failure to conduct a proper investigation. Both demerits resulted in official reprimands from the department. In spite of repeated offenses, Morsovillo continues his work as a District 2 officer. When asked about his past troubles and how they affect his status as an officer, Morsovillo had no comment. In other cases, officers did not reoffend. Daniel Resnick was another officer who was granted a deferred prosecution, once again for a disorderly conduct charge involving a dispute with a spouse. He fulfilled the terms of his agreement, and the charge was later dismissed. According to the arrest-detention report, his wife alleged that, during a heated argument, Resnick pushed her to the ground, causing her to bump her head on a washing machine. Resnick has not run afoul of the law or received any disciplinary action since the 2004 charge and did not respond to messages left at his residence. His personnel card says he received a three-day suspension for violating the criminal laws of Wisconsin in 2005 and currently works the early shift at District 4. DA's office doesn't track agreements Custodian of Office Records for the Milwaukee County D.A.’s Office Jim Martin said in a recent letter that “the district attorney’s office does not maintain a database of police officers that receive deferred prosecution agreements.” Additionally, Deputy District Attorney Jon Reddin said that he does not believe the D.A.’s office catalogs the number of DPAs, including those issued to police officers. “I don’t know if anybody actually keeps track,” Reddin said. One prosecutor explained how the decision is reached to enter agreements. “What we say to somebody is, ‘ok, you’ve got a criminal charge against you and what we want is for you to engage is some type…usually counseling.’,” Assistant District Attorney Paul C. Dedinsky said. “At that point in time if you do everything that is required of you we will ultimately ask the court to follow.” Several things are considered when determining if a DPA is appropriate in a given case. Dedinsky said he looks at the existence or lack of a prior record of any criminal activity for the defendant, character, type of charge, and level of violence in the crime, among many other things. “What professionals try to do is try to script out what risk factors might be predictors for future harm,” Dedinsky said. “Nothing fool-proof or scientific that will tell us who will be the next offender.” The agreements are relatively rare. In the last year, the Milwaukee County domestic violence unit issued fewer than 100 DPAs – one of the lowest rates in the state of Wisconsin, according to Dedinsky. Police officers may be more likely to receive DPAs for crimes they commit while on the force because a prosecution may result in losing his or her job or affect his or her status on the force. Dedinsky said that while he looks at the totality of the case, he does consider the fact that an officer may lose his or her job as opposed to an average citizen. “What happens in a case relating to an officer the probable consequence is that the person will lose his or her job,” Dedinsky said. “Do I consider it? Yes, I do consider it. I know the reality of the federal law. The person is going to lose their job and that won’t happen to another person who is individually situated.” Otherwise, there is no exception for police officers, Dedinsky said. “Sometimes I’ve charged police officers…and you know what, you should have thought about it before you committed the crime,” Dedinsky said. However, Reddin believes that while the existence of employment should be considered when deciding to issue a DPA, no occupation outweighs another. “You might consider the fact that they were employed…you wouldn’t weight an occupation against another,” Reddin said. Reddin also believes that police officers should be held to a higher standard than average citizens because they are in a position to uphold the law. “My view of police officers to some extent is that they really should be held to a higher standard because they are in a position of trust,” Reddin said. Cases often involve allegations of domestic abuse Former police officer Beverly B. Moore received a DPA in August of 2004 after she was arrested for physical abuse of a child, a felony, in March of 2004. Moore (left) allegedly struck her son 20 times on March 25, 2004 with a belt and slapped him once on the right side of his face after hearing he “stabbed” a fellow female student with a pencil, according to the criminal complaint. The victim was taken to Child Protection Center and seen by Certified Pediatric Nurse Practitioner Michael Scahill where the following injuries were noted on the criminal complaint: five red scratches to the right cheek, fresh red bruising on his right hand, five fresh red horizontal marks on the neck and shoulder, a single fresh red bruise on the back of the neck, a single fresh reddish-purple bruise on the inner left thigh, a series of horizontal reddish-purple bruises on the right outer thigh, and two fresh red horizontal bruises on the left side of the head. Scahill noted the marks were consistent with an intentional inflicted injury and would be consistent with physical abuse, according to the criminal complaint. Upon conviction of a physical child abuse charge, an offender may face the maximum possible penalty of a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than three and half years or both. Moore was issued a DPA that required no further law violations, compliance with all bail conditions, payment of the domestic abuse assessment, and continued cooperation with the Milwaukee County Bureau of Child Welfare. Moore fulfilled the terms of the agreement, and the case was dismissed in May of 2005. She had no prior record but did have a list of official demerits and reprimands on her Milwaukee Police Department personnel card. Moore remained on the police force until her resignation in early 2006. Moore’s attorney, Michael Guerin, declined to comment on the specifics of her case but said that what is appropriate or not differs with every person. Guerin also said that “Wisconsin law is very clear” and employers are not allowed to discriminate against those with criminal convictions unless it directly applies to their occupation. When asked whether a criminal offense directly applies to an officer’s job, Guerin said that a lot of times “we [the public] think police should be held higher…Sure, that’s true about the execution of their job but is it necessarily true in their daily life?” Frontpage Milwaukee was unable to contact Moore. Another case involves Mark A. Ciske, who is currently a lieutenant in the sensitive crimes division. He was promoted to lieutenant in January of 2001, according to his police information record. Shortly after the promotion, Ciske allegedly engaged in violent, abusive, or otherwise disorderly conduct with his daughter, on March 29, 2002, according to the criminal complaint. According to the complaint, Mr. Ciske grabbed the daughter by the arms, attempting to throw her out the door. As a result, she suffered bruising to her arms. During the course of the argument, Mr. Ciske also allegedly slapped his daughter twice, brought her to the floor and knelt on her with his leg across her throat, the complaint said. Ciske was ordered no contact with his daughter and was issued a DPA that required him to pay $200 in restitution to Ms. Ciske and attend counseling at ICF Counseling on a weekly basis within one week of signing the agreement. Ciske had no prior record. He received one demerit for this case in April of 2003, a year after the incident with his daughter, and was suspended without pay for two consecutive working days. Ciske also has a demerit on his MPD personnel card for idling and loafing while on duty in which he received one day suspension without pay. Ciske fulfilled the requirements of the DPA and his case was dismissed in September of 2002. Ciske was contacted and had no comment on this case. In another case, police officer Carla A. Bridges was arrested for disorderly conduct involving her live-in boyfriend at the time, Jeffery Beauford. According to the criminal complaint, both Bridges and Beauford had been drinking alcohol when she came to the Catfish Lounge in Milwaukee to meet and argue with Beauford. Bridges struck Beauford once with a closed fist to the left side of his throat and proceeded outside of the lounge, yelling obscenities toward Beauford. Bridges was issued a DPA in February of 2006 that required her to attend counseling on a weekly basis within one week after signing the agreement. Bridges was also required to complete an Alcohol and Drug Assessment and follow through with all recommended education and treatment, according to the DPA. Bridges declined to comment on the specifics of the case but said that it “didn’t really affect” her status on the police force. She had no prior criminal record, but her Milwaukee Police Department Information Record shows five demerits and reprimands including the aforementioned case, for things ranging from “failing to promptly communicate possible criminal activity,” “failing to fully investigate a crime,” and “idling and loafing while on duty.” Bridges is currently assigned to the police academy. Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:16:00 CST http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17216&mname=Article http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17216&mname=Article By Erica Pollnow It's revealing how long it took Alexis West to lose his job as a Milwaukee police officer: One OWI, one criminal misdemeanor, restraining order filings against him, a stint on probation and in the House of Correction, a failed drug test, and a botched deferred prosecution agreement all weren't enough to do it. Even with a restraining order history, the Milwaukee District Attorney's office had granted him a deferred prosecution agreement that he didn't live up to. It wasn't until West committed five new crimes in March 2006 that the department acted and eventually terminated him in June 2006. Earlier, even after he was convicted of a crime involving his wife, technically charged as criminal damage to property, a judge overturned a ban ordering him not to carry a firearm, saying it was needed for his job as a police officer. West's case demonstrates how even officers who themselves fly beneath the rule of law can remain on the force to reoffend. In court almost every year - and not as an officer From 1991 to 2006, West had found himself in court almost every year and sometimes more than once, according to Wisconsin’s Circuit Court System. Based on his large court file, West is also someone who’s received second chances when given a punishment. West became a Milwaukee police officer in October of 1991. Despite the pattern of problems that ensued, the system continued to offer West relaxed punishments: In one case, West was supposed to be suspended for more than 50 days without pay, but received reduced disciplinary action, serving less than half of the suspended days, according to his police personnel card. After his first misdemeanor, West was banned from carrying a firearm but the judge later overruled that ban, according to court records. West received a deferred prosecution agreement, after being charged with his first misdemeanor, even though he had a restraining order history. West had been with the Police Department for slightly over two years, when he received his first restraining order filed against him by his first ex-wife, Janette West, in December of 1993. According to the statement filed, Janette stated Alexis pushed her up against the wall and took her down to the floor. He also allegedly threw their small child on to the floor, she said in the court documents. West allegedly grabbed a chair and fired it at her but missed and hit the refrigerator door, leaving a large dent, according to the documents. West allegedly warned Janette: “If you caused me to lose my job or attempt to get a divorce, you will regret the day you were born.” Janette received a temporary restraining order against West, who was told to stay away from Janette. In 1995, West faced criminal charges that were dismissed. The details could not be immediately learned. Janette filed her second temporary restraining order against West in April of 1996, over two years after they’d already been divorced. According to the statement accompanying the filing, Janette alleged that West constantly made hassling calls to Janette at work, sometimes 15 times a day. She maintained that he allegedly made constant threats against Janette, which caused her to fear for her life. He allegedly threatened Janette, saying he’s going to “kick her (expletive) because that’s the only way to do it,” according to the court documents. One night, Janette was at her house, with her male friend, when Alexis allegedly showed up drunk, the documents said. He allegedly became verbally abusive with her, repeatedly shouting disrespectful names at her. West also allegedly entered Janette’s house without permission and stood outside her kitchen door when she had her male friend over, and he also allegedly watched her on the weekends when she goes out. However, both parties agreed to dismiss the restraining order as long as the problem didn’t persist, according to the court file. At the beginning of April 1997, less than one year later, Janette filed a third restraining order against West, alleging that, at all hours of the night, he was persistent with phone calls and was also calling other houses, in order to find where she’s located, according to the court file. The documents filed in court say that West’s abuse in the past had created bumps and bruises, and now he’d made threats with his gun. The injunction was denied. This time, the police force was going to have West serve a 20 day suspension with no pay, according to his police personnel card, but the Fire and Police commission ordered the discipline to be dismissed, at the beginning of October 1997. Failed drug test and a criminal conviction In July of 2005, West received a criminal misdemeanor charge, criminal damage to property. He was charged because he threw a concrete statue through the rear window of his second wife, Helen Gary’s, car while she was sitting in the car, court documents say. According to the court records, in August 2005, West was given a deferred prosecution agreement by the District Attorney's office that would have allowed him to avoid a conviction. However, he failed to meet the conditions of the agreement. Out of the seven drug tests he had taken as a requirement of the agreement, three were negative, three were diluted specimen and one was positive, court records say. In between, he also accrued a new offense. In September of 2005 at 11:09 pm, West was caught driving intoxicated, while heading down I-94 eastbound, according to court files. West’s punishment was supposed to be to pay a $790.50 fine, attend an AODA assessment and his license was supposed to be revoked for eight months. He remained a police officer. In February 2006, the criminal misdemeanor case was reopened, and he was sentenced for the crime. He was placed on probation for two years and ordered to serve 45 days in the House of Correction with work release privileges. Still, West remained a Milwaukee police officer. In fact, the department would not move to terminate him until he committed a string of new crimes several months later. Originally, West was told not to carry a gun as a result of the misdemeanor conviction. However, Judge Fredrick C. Rosa reconsidered, saying: “to maintain his employment with the police, he must be allowed to possess a firearm and is allowed to carry one,” court documents say. The beginning of the end Less than one year later, after receiving his first misdemeanor charge, Alexis received five more misdemeanor charges. According to court records, West went over to Helen’s house, even though his prior conviction told him to stay away. Again, he was intoxicated and got into a verbal disagreement about a number that was on the phone bill. He began picking up furniture and slamming it down, then armed himself with a hammer and began smashing things, court documents say. West had already fled the scene before their 11-year-old son could call the cops. When the police showed up, they headed right to the nightclub where they thought West would be located because of prior police investigations he’s had, but he wasn’t there, court documents say. Court documents also say: The next day, West’s son arrived home from school to find his father drinking alcohol, so he quick ran up to his room to avoid confrontation. Alexis grabbed some ceramic plates and followed his son up to his bedroom. West then fired the ceramic plates, but his son closed the door fast enough to not get hit, but then West pushed his way into his son’s room and began breaking things. The child fled to other rooms, but West followed him. West’s son then called the police and fled the house while he waited for them to show up. West was arrested and taken to the Milwaukee Police Department Professional Performance Division. At the Professional Performance Division Headquarters, West allegedly became loud and boisterous, yelling obscenities in the hallway, according to the complaint filed. Lieutenant Yerkes attempted to calm West down, but he just kept shouting profanity at the Lieutenant. West then stated, “I’m gonna sue your (expletive).” West then was conveyed to the Criminal Justice Facility, but still continued to be rowdy and disrespectful to the Milwaukee County Sheriff Department deputies. The deputies were then forced to restrain West, and his shoes and property were taken without his cooperation, causing quite a disturbance. The criminal charges stemming from the incident were filed in March 2006. West was ultimately convicted of five misdemeanors for this incident. But he was not ordered to serve any jail time. In September 2006, he was sentenced to three years probation and stayed jail terms. His compliance with probation was reviewed last month, and the jail time remained stayed. Helen Gary sent a letter into the court system asking the judge “to be lenient when sentencing Alex for this matter and to please give him one more chance.” Helen wanted to make it clear to the court system that “this incident involved no physical harm to me, just physical damage to “our” property in our home.” She also informed them that “he is a good person and a good police officer. He just had some personal issues that were too much to for him to handle.” When contacted to be questioned, Helen Gary stated “I’m not interested in answering any questions.” In hopes to get West’s side of the story, his attorney, James Toran was called but did not return calls for comment. According to West’s police personnel card, the force removed West from serving at District three in early summer of 2006 and assigned him to their personnel division. The chief ordered West terminated on June 15, 2006, according to Steve Fronk from Milwaukee’s Fire and Police Commission. However, Fronk said West appealed to the board on June 22, 2006 because of Wisconsin’s state statute 62.50(13), which states, “Within ten days after the date of service of the notice of a discharge or suspension order the members so discharged or suspended may appeal from the order of discharge or suspension or discipline to the board of fire and police commissioners, by filing with the board a notice of appeal….” The appeal hearing was conducted, but the decision was upheld and Alexis West was finally terminated. Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:19:00 CST http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17217&mname=Article http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17217&mname=Article By Erin Petersen A Milwaukee police detective was allowed to stay on the force after damaging city property and being cited for drunk driving in late 2003. But the exact number of police officers with drunken driving histories could not be learned because the city, Fire and Police Commission, and Police Department would not release the information to the public, saying it would be "unduly excessive" to comply. They also would not release officer dates of births on a roster released through an open records request, making it impossible for journalists to determine the information themselves in a complete fashion. Still, students with Frontpage Milwaukee were able to find a number of officers with drunk driving histories by cross-checking a 2005 police roster with court records. Take the case of Detective Gerilin Gahagan. She smelled of alcohol and failed several field sobriety tests after she crashed her car into a light pole near Holt Avenue, according to court documents. Her penalty: Gahagan was suspended for two days from the Milwaukee Police Department before she was allowed to come back to work. The investigation of Gahagan’s crash was delegated to the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department due to Gahagan’s standing within the Police Department. According to Sheriff David Clarke, this is not standard procedure, but it is a good idea due to a possible conflict of interest. “It’s always better to have an outside agency do the testing,’ Clarke says, “Just to be sure.” By the time a Sheriff’s deputy arrived, there was reportedly one on-duty Milwaukee police officer and several off-duty officers in plainclothes at the scene. An investigation was conducted and Gahagan was cited for operating while intoxicated. She was also cited with failure to keep her vehicle under control and operating with a prohibited alcohol content, but these were dismissed in court, according to court documents. In court, the detective argued that she was illegally arrested and requested that all evidence against her, including several field sobriety tests and a breathalyzer that showed an alcohol content above the legal limit, be suppressed. Gahagan spent over a year in and out of court before she was found guilty of a first offense OWI. Gahagan then spent the next year appealing the court's decision, which was ultimately upheld. Crashing her car At approximately 4 a.m. on Friday, Dec. 5, 2003, off-duty police Detective Gerilin Gahagan crashed her car into a light pole near the Interstate on-ramp at West Holt Avenue. According to court records, Gahagan then called friend and fellow MPD officer Anne Marie Domurat, who was on-duty at the time. Domurat reported to the scene immediately along with several other unnamed officers in plainclothes. Though it did not appear that any of the Milwaukee police officers present attempted to “interfere” with the investigation, according to assistant District Attorney James Frisch, Sheriff’s Deputy Karen Sharafinski was called to the scene to investigate. Sharafinski then had Gahagan wait in the back of her locked squad car while she conducted the investigation and testified in court that Gahagan “smelled strongly of alcohol” at the time. Sharafinski then conducted several standard field sobriety tests, administered a breathalyzer and placed Gahagan under arrest. Gahagan was cited with a first offense OWI, as well as failure to keep her vehicle under control and operating with a prohibited alcohol content over the legal limit. However, the last two charges were quickly dismissed after Gahagan retracted her not guilty plea and instead pleaded no contest to the OWI charge. Gahagan’s attorney William Reddin states that this is common in OWI cases where the driver pleads guilty. “By law, the judge was required to drop the PAC charge,” Reddin says, “She didn’t get a break, that’s just the law.” During the trial, Gahagan argued that the court should suppress the evidence collected at the time of her arrest. According to court records, Gahagan argued in her testimony that she was illegally arrested when she was asked to sit in the back of Sharafinski’s locked squad car. Because of this, Gahagan said that the field sobriety tests and breathalyzer were conducted illegally and should not be considered. Police Officer Anne Marie Domurat also testified in court that Gahagan was illegally arrested. In court, Frisch says the he felt that Gahagan’s testimony was truthful. “Not that she wasn’t guilty, but her testimony was honest,” says Frisch, “She seemed to have a good recollection of the events that occurred….but this may have been painted, though, by a condition…well, she’d been drinking, that’s why.” The court found that it was necessary for Gahagan to be detained in order for Sharafinski to conduct a thorough investigation of the scene. It was also noted in court records that Gahagan’s car was slightly damaged and was not a safe place for her to wait. The court denied Gahagan’s motion and found her guilty on January 5, 2005- over a year after the accident. “The Sheriff’s Department made a good, lawful arrest.” says Frisch. Gahagan immediately appealed her case, but the original verdict was upheld in April 2005. Gahagan’s license was suspended for 6 months and she was ordered to pay a $150 fine and complete an alcohol and drug assessment. During this entire process Gahagan was allowed to keep her job with MPD. According to Gahagan’s personnel file, In March 2005, two years after her OWI, she was suspended for “violating the criminal laws in effect in the state of Wisconsin” and intoxication according to her personnel report. She was suspended for one day with pay and one without. During this time, it assumed that Gahagan worked administrative duties and Gahagan’s personnel file shows that she was transferred to a different shift for approximately six months following her appeal. “You’ve got to find some busy work for them,” says Sheriff Clarke, “…but that means taking a full bodied officer out, finding room for them and paying overtime…the taxpayers get punished for this person’s transgression.” Despite the strain it puts on police administration and taxpayer dollars, cops like Gahagan most likely won’t lose their job for these offenses. Sheriff Clarke points out the role civil service requirements have to play in this. When officers find themselves in situation similar to Gahagan, civil service rules generally tend to protect them from losing their jobs by allowing them appeal certain disciplinary action. Clarke adds that this can make it difficult to do anything about these sorts of officers. “Civil service is a tough requirement to get over,” Clarke says, “Once you’re hired, you almost have to kill someone to be discharged.” Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, Milwaukee chapter president Kari Kinnard says that it’s important that the MPD follow such civil service guidelines to make sure that each case is handled carefully and fairly, but says: “We need to hold our public officials and law enforcement to a higher standard as citizens.” She adds that the punishment for each offending police officer has to be looked at individually, but that MADD hopes that these disciplinary actions are “severe enough” to get the message across. First offense drunk driving incidents like Gahagan’s are traffic citations and are not considered crimes in Wisconsin. The Milwaukee Police Department also allows applicants who have more than one OWI on their record to be hired onto the force. Contacted by a student working for Frontpage Milwaukee, Gahagan refused to comment on the specifics of her case. “She should be left alone,” says Reddin, “There’s no reason to make this any bigger or smaller than it is… [it’s] nowhere near the situations other MPD officers have found themselves in in recent years.” Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:05:00 CST http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17218&mname=Article http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17218&mname=Article By Susan Bence On a midsummer day, July 14, 1998, Edward McCrary allegedly flew into a rage. Rachel McCrary, six months pregnant at the time, said her husband threw a phone at her, court documents said. Terrified, she called 911. McCrary was charged with disorderly conduct. But that charge was later dismissed. Three months later, however, McCrary allegedly caused “bodily harm” to Rachel McCrary's cousin. The Milwaukee Police were again dispatched to the scene. This time, police took McCrary to the County Jail. He was charged with battery. Police officers had been called in on “one of our own” that night. Edward McCrary was a Milwaukee police officer. In fact, he still is, even though the battery incident resulted in a criminal conviction for disorderly conduct. McCrary is not alone. A University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee four-month student investigation has revealed multiple cases of Milwaukee police officers with criminal records. McCrary is one of a number of Milwaukee police officers accused of domestic violence. The possibility that the Milwaukee Police Department turns a blind eye to criminal behavior within its ranks brings back unsettling memories of the Frank Jude, Jr. case. In October 2004, Jude was brutally beaten outside a Milwaukee police officer’s home where a party was going on. Off-duty officers were accused of the attack. Edward McCrary, one of a number of Milwaukee police officers accused of domestic violence, was found guilty of disorderly conduct for the second incident. The McCrary case slipped under the public radar. Even though the charge involving her was dismissed, McCrary's wife had some physical protection; he was restricted by law from seeing Rachel McCrary for two years. But Assistant District Attorney Audrey Skwierawski, who worked on the case, says these situations are tough to sort out. The wife's reluctance to move forward with the case played a role in its dismissal. Skwierawski says victims of domestic abuse walk a tightrope; they need protection but they also need to keep a roof over their kids' heads. “In our state victims do not 'press charges' or control what happens in the case. Only the State can issue the charges," she said. "The best way to say this would be that the State issued the charges in this case despite the victim’s reluctance to proceed. I pressured Rachel McCrary to press charges, because it was the right thing to do, but I always regret the position that she and others like her find themselves in. It is hard to have an assistant district attorney make the decision to prosecute someone close to the victim when the victim has mixed emotions and legitimate concerns about her safety or her family’s survival if the case proceeds.” Skwierawski says Rachel McCrary was staring poverty in the face. “This is the unique situation faced by victims of domestic violence; there’s the desire to punish the husband but especially in police officer cases, there is the realization that a successful prosecution could cost the batterer is job and take away financial security for the whole family.” Carmen Pitre agrees. Pitre, executive director of Task Force on Family Violence, says the McCrary domestic abuse case is not an isolated one. Pitre says her nonprofit agency deals with many police officer cases in Milwaukee. “Police officers have power and when that officer is a perpetrator, there's always a risk of that officer using this power to their advantage." Asked if she thinks a domestic violence offender stay on the force, Petri says, “We cannot afford to have officers on the force who use violence against an intimate partner or anyone in our community.” The second arrest Late in the evening, on Oct. 5, 1998, just three months after Edward McCrary’s alleged first offense, Theresa Pulver told police she had gone out with her cousin, Rachel McCrary. According to Pulver, McCrary was home with the kids. The criminal complaint recounts how Pulver explained to authorities that when she and her cousin returned home, McCrary was sitting on the couch, waiting for them. Pulver said McCrary was agitated about his wife using his cell phone. Pulver said she tried to step in to help her cousin, telling McCrary she, not her cousin, had used his phone. Pulver then reported, McCrary grabbed her by the neck and pushed her through a screen door, court documents allege. Family Court Fifteen days later Rachel McCrary appeared in Milwaukee County Family Court. The respondent, Edward McCrary did not appear. Rachel and Edward McCrary's children were two-and-a-half and one month old at the time. Rachel McCrary reported her husband pushed her into a wall when she was eight months pregnant. “Then about three weeks ago he was coming to attach me. My cousin intervened. He ended up attacking her rather than me but he did throw the phone at me and that's where the police were involved in that incident.” Court Commissioner Robert L. Jackson, Jr. issued a two-year no contact injunction. “There are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in, or based upon prior conduct of the petitioner and the respondent might engage in domestic abuse of the petitioner,” he said, court documents recount. Criminal Court On May 13, 1999, Edward McCrary appeared in criminal court for sentencing before Circuit Judge Dominic S. Amato. That court appearance, however, was preceded by a plea agreement. McCrary's first count of domestic abuse, involving his wife, was dismissed and the second was reduced to disorderly conduct. The agreement came with the promise McCrary would go for counseling. He hadn't followed through with that promise by the court date. McCrary told the district attorney he didn't think he should have to pay for it, court documents say. Amato said, “you lost it, you shouldn't have lost it, you know you shouldn't have lost it. You did some really dumb things. I'd like to say you were taking dumb pills.” Amato said it was the Milwaukee Police Department's job to determine if Edward McCrary was fit to be on the force. Amato sentenced Edward McCrary to 24 hours in jail. “The public will at least know that symbolically you went in for a day, and that's fair and that's just, and that hereby is the judgment of the court.” Amato closed the case by saying McCrary had been punished enough. As of December 2006 Life has gone on for Officer McCrary. Since his overnight in jail, McCrary’s career as a Milwaukee Police Officer has continued. In 1999, McCrary was suspended without pay several times, in one case for a 20-day period. Attempts to reach Rachel McCrary have been unsuccessful. Skiewarski says the Edward McCray's conviction has meaning. “A lot of police cases don’t even get this far. One conviction would be enough for McCray's superiors to take action against him on the force if they chose.” Skiewarski adds, “Do I want domestic abuse perpetrators to serve as police officers? Absolutely not, but the reality of a case like this boiled down to this; did I want Rachel McCrary to be destitute on the street?” Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:26:00 CST http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17222&mname=Article http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17222&mname=Article By Michael Graber (Above: part of the arrest detention report against Oliva) On Feb. 12, 2006, according to the criminal complaint against James Oliva, Milwaukee police received a report of “shots fired” at 2:25 a.m. in the area of 2300/2400 S. 1st St. Several minutes later, after hearing the report of the shooting, an officer heard several other gunshots. According to the complaint: During the investigation, a detective interviewed a woman who was at the scene. She had come to Milwaukee from Indiana to attend a dinner and dance and went to a tavern with friends. She said she heard some firecrackers go off. She was interviewed again, still in February. This time she said she heard gunshots go off, and Oliva was one of those behind her. She didn’t see who fired them. In March, she was interviewed yet again and said she hadn’t told the truth. This time, she said she turned around and saw Oliva holding a gun, pointed at the sidewalk, and saw him shoot it. Another man in the party also shot a gun, she said. In May, Oliva was interviewed. He said he is a member of a motorcycle club. He and the Indiana members were at the Bottle Tavern, along South Kinnickinnic Avenue. When he left the bar, he said, while in the middle of the street, “he pulled out his gun and fired a shot, or possibly two shots. He said that he did not remember if he shot at the ground or into the air, but that he thinks it was into the street. The defendant said that he does not know why this happened, but that his judgment was impaired by the alcohol he had used.” In May 2006, Oliva was convicted of disorderly conduct and sentenced to 90 days in the House of Correction with work-release privileges. The sentence was stayed and he was ordered to serve a year of probation and not involve himself in activities of the Untouchables Motorcycle Club. His personnel card says he is assigned to patrol support division and does not list any disciplinary action. Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:17:00 CST http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17223&mname=Article http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17223&mname=Article